A Little Plain Talk About the Church Anyone who is no stranger in Jerusalem knows that not all things are well in the CRC of late; we seem to be more and more bent on following the example of our “mother” church in the Netherlands: women in office, children at the Lord’s Supper, soft on homosexualism, etc. And some of the leadership especially in Grand Rapids is promoting this trend. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to know. But . . . try to do something about it, by word as well as by deed, and it won’t be accepted with kindness by many people. We just don’t like to be told these things. The attitude appears to be: Don’t rock the boat. Let’s keep the peace. Those who do protest are more likely to get rapped than those who make the protest necessary in the first place. Those who oppose the wrong trend in the church are often called the troublemakers. But perhaps this shouldn’t surprise us too much. For here too, there is nothing new under the sun. Ahab called Elijah “thou troubler of Israel.” But Elijah reminded him that the shoe was on the other foot—he had troubled Israel by all his idolatries! It was the same thing in the time of Micaiah. Why couldn’t Micaiah be nice and say good things like the other 400 prophets of Baal? Why did he always have to be difficult? But Micaiah said: “I speak only that which the Lord wants me say.” And for that he got put into prison. It was the same in the days of the major prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah. The people said to the seers, “See not,” and to the prophets, “Prophesy not to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophecy illusions, leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more of the Holy One of Israel” (Isa. 30:10, 11). And Jeremiah said: “An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so.” (Jer. 5:31). The leaders weren’t the only ones to blame; the people wanted it this way too. Later he says, “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). The peace and unity of the church are important, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever. Therefore, we admit only of that which tends to nourish and preserve true concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God (Art. 32). It could be that those who protest wrong trends in the church love the peace and unity of the church more than those who are afraid of protest.

Of course, protest must be carried out in a proper way , and sometimes mistakes are made. But it is not right or fair to point to these mistakes without at the same time first protesting the wrong trends in the church. For the latter have the greater sin. At those our main protest should be directed. But often that doesn’t take place. The example of the “Punt case” at Class is is a case in point. The minister and consistory of 1st Lethbridge got rapped on the fingers for a wrong technicality, but the real issue was side-stepped . We received not one word of commendation (except from individual delegates) for the fact that we protested a wrong trend in the church. Only the technicality got dealt with. As one delegate said: When there is a fire, one can do one of two things : put the fire out himself or call the fire department. But perhaps there is a third possibility: Go into the street and call, “Fire!” That‘s what we tried to do with respect to the Punt issue-alert the church to a “fire”—because, as the delegate remarked, perhaps the fire brigade is on strike. So alert others to the problem. But when you cry “fire” you are disturbing the peace, and it‘s not nice to disturb the peace. Don’t forget that Hendrik De Cock & Klaas Schilder got deposed on the basis of a “technicality” too. The real issue was ignored or side-stepped. It ‘s time we wake up from our slumber and sense what is going on. We need some more of De Bres’ zeal who said they would “offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire” rather than deny the truth expressed in this Confession. The CRC could use a dose of this kind of conviction today.

The truth is above all. No blind loyalty to any institution (not even to the church) should make us compromise the truth. And the conscience of the believer is bound by the Word of God alone, as even the Church Order recognizes (cf. Art . 29). As the Belgic Confession says, we may not consider any “councils , decrees or statute: as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all” (Art. 7). Before we deplore “polarization” in the church, let’s be sure we have the facts straight, lest we be found to be barking up the wrong tree. It is those who depart from the confessions of the church who are responsible for polarization, not those who resist such departure. Some members, including ex-elders, have already left the CRC. I do not agree with them in taking this action at this time. However, rather than blame them, we ought to blame the synod and leadership in the CRC who are the cause of such action. Let‘ s point the finger at the real source of the problem.

In conclusion, a couple o f quotations:

The cause of truth demands an aggressive attack on error …. An abhorrence of falsehood is the measure of our love of truth …..

There are those who themselves believe in that body of truth . . . who nevertheless are willing to compromise with those who are disloyal to the faith, in order to avoid the appearance of differences . . . . The greatest danger of the age in which we live does not come from unsound men, but from men who are sound themselves but who, for the sake of the impression made upon the world by an undivided Church, are willing to cooperate with heterodoxy, and thus give it countenance . . . . To com promise the truth for the sake of peace is untrue to all those who have suffered for it in the past . . . .

It is quite common to brand the man who is watchful against the encroachments of error as a “heresy-hunter.” An epithet is recognized as a last resort of a defeated cause. I dare affirm, that, in view of the infinite and everlasting importance of the saving truth of the gospel, the man who resists the entrance of false teaching into the Church has done humanity a greater service than the one who has established a chain of hospitals and asylums. The more he is forced to stand alone, the more honor to him. (A.M. Fraser)

Specifically there are three areas of deep concern to conservatives in the CRC:

1. Most Synodical decisions on this issue (women in office) were decided by very close votes. The Chr. Ref. Synod has made a far reaching decision . . . on the slimmest margin of votes. There is in all this the appearance of calloused political maneuvering rather than a pastoral concern for all segments of the body of Christ.

2 . The arguments most frequently given in favor of ordaining women were pragmatic rather than biblical. Many speakers at Synod seemed to assume that the matter of ordaining women as deacons was matter of overcoming prejudice rather than a matter of interpreting Scripture . . .

3. This is not the end of the matter. It is well known that there are those who want to see women deacons, elders, and ministers in the Church . . . . Neither have they abandoned their views. They are waiting for a more appropriate time to open up the entire issue once again . . . .

The time has come for conservatives in the Chr. Ref. Church to develop a united front in the face of these developments . . . .WE gladly participate in this endeavor. Pray with us that much good may come from it. (Prof. T . Monsma in Mid-Amer. Messenger)

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

   

WE BELIEVE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT

We confess in the Belgic Confession that “we believe without any doubt all things contained in them”—i.e. the sacred Scriptures. But it has struck me over the years, in connection with some of the controversies that have plagued our church, that if “scholarship” or “science” casts doubt on the reliability of Scripture, then some among us, notably professors, are no longer “without any doubt” as far as the Scriptures go. Too often “science” or “scholarship” appear to have the last word. Then we no longer have the conviction of the lady who said: Even if the Bible told me that Jonah swallowed the fish, I would believe it. Yes, that may seem “naive” and simplistic to some, but that is ultimately the kind of child-like trust we need in the Bible. I am all in favor of sound scholarship and good scientific endeavor, but when they begin to dictate what in the Bible is reliable and what is not reliable, then we are in deep trouble. Can science ever “prove” the resurrection ofJesus Christ? Or the historicity of Adam and Eve? We do well to keep in mind what synod said in Report 44, when it reminded the churches “that the authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the findings of science.” The Report itself puts it this way:

The church may not, however, allow its message to be made dependent upon the scientific enterprise, nor allow scientific findings to dictate its interpretation of the Bible, nor allow the claims of science to call into question its confession of biblical authority, nor allow any science, including theology, to determine what is¹believable and what is not believable in the Bible.

That is clear language which we need to hear today. But when I read what a Calvin College professor recently wrote about the origin of the world, including Adam and Eve, then I wonder: What is determining what? And I ask the same question when it is said that “cultural anthropology” casts doubt about the actual historicity of our first parents, Adam and Eve. Some years back another professor said that if it were ever proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead , he would cease to be a Christian. The question is: Could that ever be proved? Is it even remotely possible that some day science would prove this? What I mean is this: Is our faith in Scripture in the final analysis dependent on the findings of science? Or do we say with Paul, “Now Christ Jesus has been raised from the dead” (I Cor. 15:20). Amen! No doubt about it. Even if all the scientists in the world denied it, even if many famous scientists told us that they had found the bones of Jesus, need that shake our faith? Of course not! Even if an angel from heaven should say this, says Paul, we would not believe it. Rather, those who say this are accursed. Why then are we so enamored with “science” and (so-called) scholarship? The veracity of our faith does not depend in any way upon science or scientists. God has told us, and His word is truth. “Human hearts and looks deceive me, Thou art not, like man, untrue.”

In the final analysis, this isn’t a matter of scholarship or science; it’s a matter of the final allegiance of the heart. As Francis Schaeffer writes in one of his books: “It arose not because of that which could be demonstrated by science, but because the scientists (theologians, J.T.) who took this new view had accepted a different philosophic base. The findings of science, as such , did not bring them to accept this view; rather , their world view brought them to this place.”

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

About Confessions and Quotas

When professors, ministers, elders and deacons of the Christian Reformed Church are ordained they sign the Form of Subscription, which, in part, reads:

“We . . . do hereby, sincerely and in good conscience before the Lord, declare by this our subscription that we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618–’19, do fully agree with the Word of God.

We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same by our public preaching or writing.”

During recent years this confidence has been disappearing, mainly, I believe, because people in the Church are starting to notice a total lack of commitment to the confessions on the part of many in leadership positions. This again became very painfully and publicly apparent in the discussions and voting at the 1984 synod dealing with the issue of women in office, among others. Rather than basing decisions on a unified confessional understanding of the Bible, the synod made a series of contradictory and confusing decisions, trying to please everyone. Additional confusion was created by granting a conscientious objector status to those ministers who believe that these decisions are contrary to the Scriptures. Is this confessional? One only has to read Article 4, 29, 30 and 31 of our Confession of Faith to see that the answer is a resounding NO!! And now, consider the plight of the elders and deacons who have Scriptural objections, and the rest of the church membership! How can we work with the female office bearers in the council or accept them in our homes when we believe they are not authorized to function as such? This is only part of the problem. Think too of our quota giving. If I am convinced that this new way of interpreting the Bible is dead wrong and contrary to our confessions, why should I help pay the salaries of professors, teachers, and ministers who actually teach and promote this “new” hermeneutic? It is inconsistent and counter-productive to protest the unbiblical positions taken by individuals and synods and, at the same time, finance the individuals and agencies promoting them.

In our classis (Holland), it is very obvious that the younger ministers (with a few notable exceptions) are the ones promoting the elimination of everything that ever made us a confessionally Reformed denomination. Again, why should those of us who oppose this deadly trend, finance its progress? A quota system of giving can only function in a church which is unified and bound by its confessions. I believe we become corporately responsible if we do not oppose error with all means available, including directing the use of our funds.

Good stewardship is more than generous and joyful giving; it is also directing this giving to those agencies and institutions whose work and teaching reflect a desire to do everything in humble subjection to the Bible as our only rule of faith and life. Peter Yonker, Holland, Michigan Women, Positively

The danger for those who hold the traditional view of the ministry is that we approach the problem of the role of women far too negatively. The Bible’s teaching is not exhausted when we say that women may not preach and may not exercise authority. There is much they may do, have been doing and should be encouraged to do.

There is even clear warrant for women exercising a teaching ministry. They can teach their own children at home. They can teach the children of others. They can teach younger women. This last is particularly important. In many churches the teaching of younger women, especially in practical and ethical matters, goes by default because the problems are not the kind that men can (or should) discuss with women. This is an area where the ministry of mature women could be enormously important.

It is very interesting, too, that in the Book ofActs Priscilla is associated with her husband Aquilla in teaching Apollos. Clearly a mature Christian woman can do much to instruct promising young men in “the way of God more perfectly.”

Women can also have a meaningful ministry in Christian counselling. Today this is often seen as a highly specialized function, the exclusive province of those with at least some psychiatric train ing. There is little warrant for this in Scripture, which sees counselling as a responsibility of the whole Christian fellowship. Women as well as men are covered by Paul’s charge to the Thessalonian believers: “Warn those who are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, strengthen the weak.” Many problems would never get to the minister, let alone the psychiatrist, if they were faced up to by Christian women in the interactions of ordinary Christian friendship. If some women in the fellowship also have a training in psychology or psychiatry that is, of course, a welcome bonus.

And of course, women may evangelize. That is not a point to be conceded. It is something to be emphasised. No Christian needs the sanction of any church to bear witness to her Savior. 

Note: An editorial from “Focus” from Dec. 1984 Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland by Donald Macleod, editor.